Scan barcode
A review by mashedpotatoandsaladcream
Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence
challenging
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
as a sequel of “the rainbow”, lawrence continues the tale of ursula bragwen and her sister, gudrun, as they “fall in love” with two friends (said friends having a blatant, at least to the reader, homoerotic relationship -one which i saw as gerald almost knowing and rupert as oblivious to the reality as a relationship like he proposed was, of course, not fully accepted, this could also be just a reflection of lawrence’s own sexuality in his desire for a “man friend” - “he should have loved me, i offered him” “what difference would it have made!” “it would! it would.” … “did you need gerald?” “yes.” “aren’t i enough for you?” “no”)
i’ll be honest i was much more interested in seeing the dynamic between gerald and rupert, and i would have loved to see more about hermione (the way rupert treated her and the others as well, and ig vice versa) seemed so brutal for me when i could read parts of her thoughts and relate and then to have lawrence’s self insert was like an attack for some reason (“you and spontaneity! you, the most deliberate thing that ever walked or crawled!… you want it all in that loathsome little skull of yours, that ought to be cracked like a nut. for you’ll be the same till it is cracked, like an insect in its skin —if one cracked your skull perhaps one might get a spontaneous, passionate woman out of you, with real sensuality— as it is, what you want it pornogrpahy —looking at yourself in mirrors, watching your naked animal actions in mirrors, so that you can have it all in your consciousness, make it all mental”) but she disappeared randomly like half way through the novel.
at times i had no idea why ursula and rupert were really together but that could just be me not fully understanding all the little nuances that lawrence is trying to get through his work but i just didn’t really understand (i have a uni course on him so maybe that will change) but the train scene?? the wrestling?? the blood oath scene?? how rupert reacted at the very end?? “gerald, i rather hate you” “i know you do”. i was rooting for them to be honest, i hated how gerald like changed completely when it came to women and desire (for control?? freudian mother and child theory w sons??) but i just got it in my head that he knew he loved rupert but wouldn’t accept it and i just KEPT getting that from his actions (not words) around rupert. like it was not like ambiguously hinted it was BLATANT at each point.
for a novel that was written through a war, you can sense the nihilism with humans and humanity and the industry so very clearly. each character experienced it at some point and it was so distinct. the themes of animals was also offene reoccuring (especialy with instinct in relationships, how everyone is an animal under the human outward appearance catered to society), conflict in relationship and the idea of triumphing over the other (especially on gerald’s and gudruns), but also he explores the different types of love and relationships one can have.
again his writing doesn’t fail (although his sex scenes… they’re something) and the way he writes of nature and personal conflict is always interesting to me. and i KNOW rupert is a sort of self insert and biased and all that but i think him and hermione were my favourite ones to see and read. rupert desire for something more?? something equal in a relationship?? my criticism is that sometimes things just went from one end to the other, quick changes and polar opposites of feelings (commentary on how close they are?? idk) and i just felt lost with why the sudden change or why the sudden acceptance in the relationship (am i missing a clue?? why did rupert suddenly love ursula?? i low-key found the beginning classroom scene cute but the rest?? confusion).
if you liked his other books you’ll like this.
i’ll be honest i was much more interested in seeing the dynamic between gerald and rupert, and i would have loved to see more about hermione (the way rupert treated her and the others as well, and ig vice versa) seemed so brutal for me when i could read parts of her thoughts and relate and then to have lawrence’s self insert was like an attack for some reason (“you and spontaneity! you, the most deliberate thing that ever walked or crawled!… you want it all in that loathsome little skull of yours, that ought to be cracked like a nut. for you’ll be the same till it is cracked, like an insect in its skin —if one cracked your skull perhaps one might get a spontaneous, passionate woman out of you, with real sensuality— as it is, what you want it pornogrpahy —looking at yourself in mirrors, watching your naked animal actions in mirrors, so that you can have it all in your consciousness, make it all mental”) but she disappeared randomly like half way through the novel.
at times i had no idea why ursula and rupert were really together but that could just be me not fully understanding all the little nuances that lawrence is trying to get through his work but i just didn’t really understand (i have a uni course on him so maybe that will change) but the train scene?? the wrestling?? the blood oath scene?? how rupert reacted at the very end?? “gerald, i rather hate you” “i know you do”. i was rooting for them to be honest, i hated how gerald like changed completely when it came to women and desire (for control?? freudian mother and child theory w sons??) but i just got it in my head that he knew he loved rupert but wouldn’t accept it and i just KEPT getting that from his actions (not words) around rupert. like it was not like ambiguously hinted it was BLATANT at each point.
for a novel that was written through a war, you can sense the nihilism with humans and humanity and the industry so very clearly. each character experienced it at some point and it was so distinct. the themes of animals was also offene reoccuring (especialy with instinct in relationships, how everyone is an animal under the human outward appearance catered to society), conflict in relationship and the idea of triumphing over the other (especially on gerald’s and gudruns), but also he explores the different types of love and relationships one can have.
again his writing doesn’t fail (although his sex scenes… they’re something) and the way he writes of nature and personal conflict is always interesting to me. and i KNOW rupert is a sort of self insert and biased and all that but i think him and hermione were my favourite ones to see and read. rupert desire for something more?? something equal in a relationship?? my criticism is that sometimes things just went from one end to the other, quick changes and polar opposites of feelings (commentary on how close they are?? idk) and i just felt lost with why the sudden change or why the sudden acceptance in the relationship (am i missing a clue?? why did rupert suddenly love ursula?? i low-key found the beginning classroom scene cute but the rest?? confusion).
if you liked his other books you’ll like this.